Shyfer @ Shyfer @ttrpg.network Posts 10Comments 1,035Joined 2 yr. ago
How? There's no one to vote for that's anti-genocide.
I have a feeling he's waiting until closer to the election because the voters have such a short memory. Thats what I would have recommended if I worked for him lol.
Oh ya, I should have guessed. There are a couple Baltic states that did increase in living standards and make some rapid industrialization improvements, but they also made some definite mistakes with handling some things there and trying to do some Russia centralization. It made some of those places very right leaning, which is unfortunate.
At least it generally shared technologies improvements and such with those places. It doesn't make the USSR worse than the US, for example, which ruined basically all of South and Central America even worse than the USSR did for its neighbors. I want to emphasize that it made some big mistakes, but for some reason people contribute those mistakes to communism, when the US and other capitalist countries had even worse occupations with even worse exploitation, but for some reason that never leads to people saying capitalism is terrible and awful, etc. The world is just too propagandized by the West. The difference is that imperialism and exploitation is basically required by the capitalist system, while it's a side effect of militarization under a siege mindset for communism. It happened, and will probably continue to happen as long as communism requires capitalism characteristics to jumpstart production, but it's not a constant requirement of the system like capitalism's necessity for the line to go up leading to always finding new markets and resources to take.
I mean yes, obviously Hamas is bad. I just mean in this very specific case, they've been asking for things like a permanent ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, freedom of movement for Palestinians in Northern Gaza where they lived, and release of Palestinian hostages (who are often held without charge, and they've often asked for captured women and children, too, not just male Hamas fighters). Those things aren't absurd.
The USSR did good things and bad things but reactionaries like to pretend it was all bad. There are hard numbers about life expectancy increasing, better life for women, research achievements, general quality of life and happiness metrics, and more that increased. There was lots of bad parts, but same in the US.
There were anti gay laws on the books for the US, and towns you couldn't even walk in while black. Hell, there are still some sundown towns in places in the US. If you just point out that stuff, or if you lived in such a horrible area or had family who did spreading their stories, then it will just come off as a hell hole. The US does suck, but it's not just Skid Row, the projects, lynch mobs, coups, wars, etc. Same for the USSR. There were good things we can save and build on, and bad things we need to avoid for future socialist projects.
It's not like the first attempts for democracy went well, either. But I wouldn't diss it in the Middle Ages and say we can only do monarchies, the pinnacle of political achievements, just because " it never succeeded. It fell in Greece and the Roman Republic and every other time it's been tried, and has never worked ever and thus is always doomed to fail."
And a lot of attempts have also been great at raising the standards of living for the general population, as well as for economic development in a relatively quick amount of time.
Ah, I misinterpreted you. Sorry about that. But it's hard to tell exactly what you're talking about without more details. Afghanistan, maybe? I get if you don't want to dox yourself, as someone privacy minded, but it's hard to know how to respond without more context.
Lol it sounds like someone trying to defend capitalism. "No, it's totally fine, we just didn't implement it right. There are certain laws and regulations that can fix it, we swear!"
Yet for some reason any flaw with a communist country is endemic to communism itself, instead of the implementation, contexts of their outside conditions, or foreign influence, or general state of economic development.
Even when they don't turn it into a dictatorship, they may just turn it back into capitalism, like Russia did. And when that happens, they just sell all the old estates to the highest bidder, making them richer and turning them into oligarchs. And that becomes functionally equivalent to a dictatorship of the bourgeois.
Are they making actual progress on that path, though? They have tons of billionaires, lots of people go bankrupt there from medical bills or are homeless (unlike some other communist countries). The state owns a lot of businesses, but then so does Norway. All their initiatives seem to be related to hurting gay people or making it harder for kids to play video games. They've arrested some rich people and cracked down on some corruption, but that also sounds like it could come from a capitalist country. I can't really find any sort of long-term plan.
You could do that with any country that's had famines and disasters.
United States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
Ireland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
First of all, communism isn't utopian. Even communists don't think it will be some paradise where all worries disappear. You'll still have to fight racism, sexism, bad weather, famines, etc.
But it's often better for an average person from a country of a starting equal level of economic development. You've got to give it the "If I was reincarnated in a random person's body, where would I want to be?" test. US is a good answer, but it's got a way higher level of economic development with a big headstart. Even then, you could end up in the hood and die early and stressed. When you give the test comparing countries of equal starting economic development, it becomes a lot more muddled.
Like, would you rather randomly live in Cuba, or Somalia? The place where you get free education, health care, etc or a place that is also extremely poor but you don't get that stuff? You could reincarnate as some rich, warlord there, but would you want to take that chance when you could reincarnate in Cuba as literally anyone and not be worried about ending up homeless? When giving realistic comparisons like this with proper historical context, and you do it over and over again, they tend to come out on top.
It also keeps being built in third-world countries, usually blockade, sanctioned, or regime changed by Western countries so it's also hard to tell without those variables. Although so far it has a pretty good track record for equal levels of starting development.
Not really. You're talking about what happened after the USSR. Which yes, was horrible for the quality of life of people who lived in numerous countries all over the globe, but that's more of an indictment of capitalism than communism. The looting of the government coffers to privatize everything and create oligarchs was a result of the post-USSR shock therapy.
That's been an issue in constant capitalist countries, too. That's not an issue of communism and is an unrelated complaint.
Sorry, had a busy weekend lol. Anyway, where were we?
I'm talking about proportional strike back. Israel has gone way beyond that, to the point that the north of Gaza isn't even livable in anymore. They've killed tens of thousands of civilians, numerous hospitals, refugee camps, cultural centers, etc. There's no infrastructure, no water, no power. People are starving to death and dying of thirst. It's complete annihilation.
Of course Hamas isn't going to give the hostages back for a simple, temporary ceasefire. It's their only leverage. It just leads to the same situation they were in before of slowly losing land and rights. They are not asking for absurd demands. They're asking for their rights and land back. The countless protests by families of the hostages proves Bibi doesn't care about them at all. They're a good excuse to keep killing Palestinians, but that's it. If anything, it's just causing the deaths of more hostages.
And your last paragraph suggests a very strange reading of history. Palestine has been defending themselves from settler colonialism and Israeli terrorist groups since before Israel was a country. Peaceful resistance hasn't helped at all. The March for Return just got them a bunch of dead people, maiming, and blown off kneecaps. They've been asking for help from the international community for 70 years and Israel refuses to let them return to their homes or form any sort of state.
They've been slowly losing due to Western propping up of this colonialist project. But people aren't going to just lay down and let themselves lose everything their ancestors have worked for for generations. Of course they're going to fight. They're not throwing a temper tantrum, they're trying to prevent themselves from going as extinct as the Native American, Australian aboriginal, or indigenous Canadians. Seeing that is just being realistic. You would do the same thing in their situation. So, if they want an actual solution, they can either complete their genocidal project, or try to negotiate for peace by sharing power and living space. Everyone who has a heart doesn't want option #1.
This is incredible. Like, it was always obvious from a gut feeling or seeing comments reposted in the exact same thread, but this makes it even more obvious.
Im no international relations expert, I just know genocide is bad. But, if I were forced into the position, I'd probably suggest striking back proportionally, then make a deal to return hostages. This would probably involve negotiating for a two state, or even better a one state, solution. Negotiate with PLO to legitimize them, take the wind out of Hamas recruitment by giving the Palestinians full rights and sovereignty. Get international agencies in, and not just biased ones like the US and Germany, to help negotiate this so everyone gets heard. Basically, do something akin to dealing with what South Africa did, or how LBJ would negotiate with MLK to avoid dealing with the more militant black movements, or how they dealt with the IRA (negotiations, not violence).
What do you call 34,000 dead, 2/3rds of which are women and children? And mass graves of 400 of women, the elderly, and wounded at hospital sites? What's the difference between mass murder and that? Or do you just prefer the word genocide? Because that seems worse...
Ya, Lemmy is so biased against genocide and the mass murder of women and children. It's weird.